Casting Shadows

In the previous post we turned the play of an RPG into an elephant without saying that is what we were doing and then looked at the whole elephant instead of the more traditional inspection of its parts. Who could have imagined elephants could be so helpful in the discussion of RPGs? Who besides the elephants themselves, of course.

For those just tuning in intentionally or by accident, the previous post zoomed out on RPGs to see them as specific conversations with recognizable parts, each with its own function(s), the participants in which exchange information about an imagined situation leading to an interplay of actions, reactions, and interactions with all of the participants and elements of the conversation. Often, in our zeal to define the nature of RPGs, gamers can get caught up in those specifics and forget about – or worse deride – those enjoyably investigating some other part or parts of the elephant. From early ‘zines like Alarums and Excursions through staples of Internet RPG interaction like RPGnet, we can see how early into the hobby and how consistently throughout, how much the parts have been so much more the topic than their sum – despite the often ardent belief that they were not.

Interestingly, we can work toward the discovery that conversation is the medium of RPGs like the blind men feeling out the shape of the elephant, and we can work toward the diverse range of possibilities for specific RPG conversations from the idea that conversation is their medium – even the solo ones. This makes an interesting parallel in my mind with activities like what is now called Session Zero – actually talking about what it is that we want to do with our group’s game, and how we will achieve it, versus blindly leaping into play willing (hopefully) to have our assumptions changed by a current reality.

In this discussion of the medium of RPGs, if we take the time to ensure everyone knows that is what we are doing, does the discussion bear more or less fruit? Is the elephant uncovered faster or slower? Is its nature as an elephant accepted faster or slower? Is most of the confusion eliminated? Are some of the tangents? Is the cost of this the potential loss of some moments of brilliance as the formalized structure of interaction works for framed-in clarity but against boundary-free inspiration? Let’s ask the imaginary elephant gaming in the imaginary room with some very real people, Dear Reader.

The Elephant Speaks in Many (well 6) Voices Not My Own

For the pair of panel discussions on the fearfully abstract (Roll SAN!) notion that Conversation is the Medium of RPGs, I recruited some regular discussion partners and some who I have met and spoken with more recently. As noted in the previous blog post, I gave them a set of background questions to share among us, to prime and help them enter into the panel discussion more quickly and comfortably with relative strangers. In the terms of the elephant, everyone knew it was in the room, everyone had explored some or many parts of it on their own and with others, some loved the whole beast and some preferred parts, and everyone wanted to talk about it.

Also in that previous post, I shared those background questions with you, Dear Reader. They are reposted below. What I did not share were the identities of the panelists, and their responses. That is what this post is for. In the first panel to get recorded, the members were myself as a Moderator of sorts, SameOldJi, Ivan Podgwaite, and Brian Gregory. The second panel includes myself again, Che Webster, James Bacon, and Daniel Jones.

SameOldJi is a younger participant in his second decade of gaming. He has done much of his exploration of the hobby through making contact with gamers around the world through the Internet and applying the ideas he has found out there in his home groups. He has been active on YouTube in the past, but now focuses on his Podcast.

Ivan Podgwaite is an old hand at RPGs with a pause in the middle and then an explosion of activity in really delving into the hobby in the last decade or so. He shares his thoughts and experiences on his YouTube channel and is a core part of my online gaming.

Brian Gregory is another old hand with an inquisitive mind and a desire to take things apart to see how they work so he can recreate them his own way. He has recently relaunched his YouTube channel, now called Stochastic Agency to share those ideas. He runs the RPG Techniques Consortium with me and is an active part of the ongoing Call of Cthulhu campaign we are sharing on my channel.

Che Webster is the talented host of the Roleplay Rescue podcast and Discord server and writer of the blog of the same name. His search for more engaging and fun ways to play, and his commitment to helping those who have drifted from the hobby get back into it, and to those who have been curious but have never played an RPG are a very positive force in gaming. I have had a lot of fun talking with Che off and on over the past few years on our podcasts, and gaming with him more recently – also in our ongoing Call of Cthulhu campaign.

James Bacon is a fellow with questions about this hobby of ours and he is not afraid to dig deeply and honestly into them. His YouTube channel is a refreshingly sincere look into gaming and ideas that surround it. I haven’t gamed with Bacon, yet, but we have enjoyed some good conversations together.

Daniel Jones is another person I have started speaking with RPGs about in the past year or so and noted another kindred spirit. Daniel, host of the Primaeval Fantasy YouTube channel and podcast, was introduced to me through the work of Che Webster. He is a fellow that has thought deeply on what he wants from RPGs and how to get it. He then put pen to paper and word to deed in making a game and testing it out to make sure the tools hit the target.

These six received the questions below and in a brief 5-8 minute span, shared their ideas on them. The overlaps and variances are what give shape to these conversations as a whole, but the questions and their responses also answer what an RPG can be, show how system matters to how we play in a functional sense, lay a solid foundation for exploration of the fluid and still developing variations in the structures of individual RPGs, and demonstrate why some game formats such as playing online or playing by post can fail even though the group is interested in the content of play and committed to playing together.

So, with the guests introduced, before we begin our exploration of the elephant that is the idea that conversation is the medium of RPGs, let’s get the furniture cleared out of the way to give ourselves a sense of the room, a sense of where we are in it, and the room to maneuver.

Below are the responses shared by the panel participants before learning the identity of their fellow members and before hearing anyone else’s response.

Panel 1: The Older Discussion Group

Panel 2: The Newer Discussion Group

How do these responses intersect with your own, Dear Reader?

You can let us know in the comments section below, by reaching out by Gmail via runescastshadows, or by leaving a voice message on SpeakPipe.